The Electoral College – Fix it, scrap it or leave it alone?

posted at 8:31 am on October 27, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Before you ask, yes… this topic was already touched upon in the Green Room yesterday. But since the comments section isn’t up and around yet, (edit: Comments are back up! Great job, tech geeks!) you may as well have the chance to weigh in along with my own, long standing take on it. Democratic rep Steve Israel came up with what may be one of the silliest ideas ever put forward in terms of restructuring American elections.

The head of the House Democratic campaign arm this week proposed a constitutional amendment that would give the winner of the popular vote in the presidential race an additional 29 electoral votes.

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) did not offer an explanation in the joint resolution filed in the House for why he was proposing to change the way elections in the U.S. are decided.

This suggestion fails on two levels. First, if you’re going to propose an amendment to fix the electoral college, you’re admitting that it’s broken. And if you’re willing to go so far as to say that it’s not working, perhaps you should just admit that it’s not needed in the modern era.

Second, even if we are to assume that the EC is worth fixing, you should at least propose something which actually addresses its many, obvious shortcomings. The suggested solution simply seems to say, “Hey! this system ignores the popular vote. So we should give the popular vote more power!” Well, Steve, if that’s your argument then all you’re proposing is to make an already convoluted and distorted system more complicated.

I’ve opposed this appendix in the American body politic vigorously since the 2000 election, but there was never much resonance among Republicans since it would have resulted in an election loss for George W. Bush. However, we’re now seeing a situation where Barack Obama could, in theory, pull off the same dubious achievement that Bush did twelve years ago. (As I briefly noted yesterday morning.)

I’ve heard the arguments in favor of keeping the Electoral College in place. In fact, Doug Mataconis published a roundup of them this fall, including the only argument I’ve ever found persuasive, as written by Daniel Foster.

In short, the College reflects the formal and constitutional fact that the president is elected chief executive of a union of states — federated but sovereign — and not a conglomeration of people. The executive of the Constitution, of the Founders, is president of the United States, not president of America. Its detractors consider it an anachronism, but if federalism still means anything — and sadly, that’s something of an open question — then the College is as vital as ever. It affirms that we vote as citizens of the several states, not mere residents of arbitrarily drawn administrative districts.

I get that part of it. There’s a natural inclination among those who favor the original vision of states’ powers to keep hold of the idea that each state should vote as a a single entity. But that’s hardly the only reason that the founders put it in place. It was also a measure to ensure that the unwashed masses didn’t do something foolish. Further, it eased the logistical problems of reporting election results in a nation which still relied on horses to get official results transmitted over long distances. But America has grown past those problems with instant results being available to every cable TV viewer on a minute by minute basis in multicolored charts and holographs.

The people of the several states still get to elect their own representatives and nothing is changing that. The executive branch is unique, with the Oval Office resident representing everyone. And that, I think, is where even Foster’s persuasive argument falls apart. The President most certainly is not the “chief executive of a union of states — federated but sovereign — and not a conglomeration of people.” In fact, the idea of Washington being the boss of the individual states should be an idea abhorrent to most conservatives. But he is elected by the people of all the states.

As things stand now, your vote doesn’t really count unless you live in one of roughly ten states. If you live in New York or California, your vote doesn’t count. It’s going to Obama whether you like it or not. And if you live in Georgia or Alabama, your vote doesn’t count either. It’s going to Romney. And your voices are not heard by presidential candidates, They don’t visit you and they don’t pay attention to your concerns unless you live in one of those ten aforementioned states.

Other common arguments include the cry of, “National Recount!!!” (eleventy!) Why? Each state can still report their own numbers and determine how close the vote would be before a recount would be required. But instead of sending in electors with scraps of paper, they could record the total vote.

Finally, (you may applaud now, Bill Clinton fans..) what does the current system have to say on the issue of faithless electors? While no election has been overturned by them, there have been a few in the past several decades. And with the stakes this high – particularly in an electoral college vote as close as this one may well be – do you really like the odds? What if, as some observers are now speculating, Romney wins the popular vote and the electoral college vote comes down to a gap of only two or three in either direction? What if three or four “patriots” from states which have just flipped back into the red column decide that kicking out the historic figure of America’s first black president is too great a burden for history to bear and change their vote? A few slips of the pen and Barack Obama is on his way to a fully constitutionally supported second term, even if he lost both the popular vote and the EC.

This system is long past its Best Sold By date. Steve Israel is on the wrong track. He recognized that there is a problem, but the solution is to abandon a system which hasn’t served a real purpose in centuries. (And don’t even get me started on the possibility of turning over the decision to Congress – a body with an approval rating only slightly higher than foot fungus.) Let the candidates make their case to all of the American people. And let them decide national elections on a national level.

Comments

With the Electoral College, vote fraud in one state can only affect that state’s outcome. Without it, one one-party state can throw an entire election with vote fraud.

Also, your comment on “national recount” makes no sense. If it’s that close, a 5% change in each of 10 small states can still have a big difference, so yes, every single state will have to do a complete recount.

Pro tip: your vote doesn’t count. Doesn’t matter if you live in IA or CA, neither state is going to be decided by one vote. If you’re a Republican in CA, your vote doesn’t matter for Gov, or Senator, since there’s no chance a Republican is going to win either of those any time soon.

If you want to spend the three months before the election getting pounded by political ads, move to one of the swing sates. Otherwise? Quit your bitching.

Where does Jazz Shaw live? One of the big blue states I presume? … looking it up … Ah yes. Ithaca, New York. I will not agree to any constitutional amendments that increase Jazz Shaw’s voting power over mine.

Here’s a better idea: Only citizens who actually pay taxes are allowed to vote.

petefrt on October 27, 2012 at 8:38 AM

I would be OK with that.

Even better, let’s go even more Originalist. Only Landowners (or those paying mortgage payments on land they use, live on or let) And registered business owners can vote. Renters, rent seekers and leeches can go pound sand.

“But you’ll disenfranchise all the blacks living in the inner cities!”

Yep. Inner city Latinos, Asians and Whites too. Until they get off their lazy behinds, get proper jobs and go buy houses or start their own businesses. Those without a stake in the economy should NOT have a say in how the economy is handled. We don’t let children vote, why let those that refuse to grow up vote either?

Yeah, for righties living in New York or California, it’s easier to say “the electoral college is unimportant because technology!” (noting, especially, that logistical benefits were a side effect of it) than to explain why states that went Red for Nixon and Red for Reagan won’t go Red for McCain, Romney or Bush.

If you want to help, get your state to pass legislation that breaks up the EC vote your state delivers. Baby steps.

People have been bad-mouthing the Electoral College for a very long time, it’s not something new. It has worked far better than direct popular elections have. There may even be better systems (I’ve thought of more than a few!) Let States try them for electing their Governors, or Federal Senators, or other countries their chief official. We don’t need to be the election-experiment vat of the world.

Anyone wanting to do away with the electoral college is an ahistorical moron and should be whipped. Anyone actually proposing legislation which would circumvent or obviate the electoral college or propose any sort of democrat-socialist direct popular vote replacement of the EC needs to be hanged from the nearest gas station awning.
The Founders of this representative republic very deliberately eschewed the mobocracy of direct popular vote, specifically to PREVENT the very situation you idiots are trying to bring about. Shame on your ignorance. Shame on your willingness to grasp at the idiocy of direct democracy.

rayra on October 27, 2012 at 2:45 PM

And add:

That also goes for moronic proposals like bayview’s proportional allocation. TO do that also obviates the electoral college and reduces our nation to a mobocracy. Something that should be avoided at ALL costs, up to and including political violence. It is time for the creeping socialism in this nation to be smashed.

Let’s not forget (and I’m not advocating this): The states in duly called constitutional convention could abolish the entire federal government with a few votes. The feds do not have the same power to abolish the states. Where is the true sovereignty?

If the states merely called a convention with abolishment on the docket, how pitiful would the groveling be? “We promise to never sue you again for enforcing the law.”

I’m sure it’s been said in this thread, but when is the management at Hot Air going to realize that Jazz Shaw is only a conservative by the loosest, most trivial of standards, and where it actually matters, he’s more of a crypto-fascist authoritarian than anything else?

Why in the hell does he continue to have a place to spew his special brand of asshattery, even if only on the weekend?

The current two parties are not guaranteed to be around forever, and being able to put an elector in means that a decayed once national party can still get a some part in politics while, similarly, a smaller party that grows in size can find a way to participate at the national scale.

By putting an elector system in place there are ways to change the course of politics even if a party can’t make it to major party status, and that is a strength of the US system, not a weakness.

The executive of the Constitution, of the Founders, is president of the United States, not president of America.

And, the following is the source of most of our problems:

The President most certainly is not the “chief executive of a union of states — federated but sovereign — and not a conglomeration of people.”

…this is why the EPA, Dept of Education, and a host of out-of control bureaucracies are so bothersome!!!

And this is certainly true:

In fact, the idea of Washington being the boss of the individual states should be an idea abhorrent to most conservatives.

…which is why we have to GET BACK TO THIS, the original intent:

The executive of the Constitution, of the Founders, is president of the United States, not president of America.

So while this is an interesting and timely post, I think you got confused during the posing of the question: somehow “federated but sovereign” got lost or corrupted.

=========
As a Conservative, I want to LEAVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ALONE!!! The major problems we have as a nation have been caused by the Central Government’s unconstitutional meddling in areas which belong to the States: thus undermining federalism and installing socialism in its place!!

The idea of a federated union of sovereign states is a critical part of the uniqueness of the USA. This structure, an alliance or federation of Sovereign States, keeps the federal government in check, balances the varied interests of different groups, and prevents mob rule and totalitarianism. States should NOT be treated as subservient to the Federal government any more than they should be treated as subservient to the UN or any other governing body.

An attack on the Electoral College amounts to an attack on the concept of Sovereign States. If State Sovereignty is destroyed, we have inferior solutions to problems because no experimentation will be allowed once the Federal government has decided upon a “one size fits all” solution. And we will have much less protection against takeover by a dictatorship (like the EPA).

Anyone wanting to do away with the electoral college is an ahistorical moron and should be whipped. Anyone actually proposing legislation which would circumvent or obviate the electoral college or propose any sort of democrat-socialist direct popular vote replacement of the EC needs to be hanged from the nearest gas station awning.

The Founders of this representative republic very deliberately eschewed the mobocracy of direct popular vote, specifically to PREVENT the very situation you idiots are trying to bring about. Shame on your ignorance. Shame on your willingness to grasp at the idiocy of direct democracy.

rayra on October 27, 2012 at 2:45 PM

This ridiculous argument surfaces every four years. The EC is not broken; it is in the Constitution, it is the law of the land. It is also a superior system of protecting the nation from the tyranny of the majority.

but the solution is to abandon a system which hasn’t served a real purpose in centuries.

If any reader of HA has been fooled into thinking that this twit (whose Momma told him he was brilliant everyday of his life, which is a major symptom of liberalism) was in any way conservative hopefully this has awakened you. The second obvious symptom of liberalism this dweeb is exhibitting is that just because he has a public forum that makes him brilliant and all the readers idiots who’ll drool over his thoughts. Isn’t it time for this guy to head over to the huffington post. Get rid of the electoral college and the failing, dysfunctional looter populations of New York and California will choose the next three presidents and after that it won’t matter because we will be living in an authoritarian socialist state if we even exist at all after the lovely denizens of the middle east start detonating atomic bombs in all our major cities. Please, please, if there is anyone with control above the squishy morrissey, please come in here and clean house, get some genuine conservatives in here. Come on people, the last person I heard pushing to get rid of the electoral college was hillary clinton. That says all you need to know.

The Electoral College is not broken. It is working as designed. We are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, which contains a Democracy within the larger Republic… and that Democracy is called the U.S. House of Representatives.

Per the original, unamended Constitution, the only federal office for which you voted was…

Your Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives.

That is why they are called your Representative… they are your Representative in the federal government.

Senators were chosen by state legislatures, and Presidential Electors were chosen by whatever method was decided upon by the state legislature. Many of George Washington’s electors were NOT chosen by a popular vote.

The 17th amendment was a mistake.

And if we went to a national popular vote for President, it would be nearly impossible to prevent Chicago-style fraud from affecting the outcome of the national (versus just state) election.

At the very least, electors should be removed. That they can still go against the people’s decision and throw the election is something ridiculous. If one of the candidates is unacceptable, there should be remedies BEFORE the election, not after.

Perhaps the votes should be determined by Congressional Districts. 435 Electoral votes. Popular vote in each district wins that district. The Electoral College would accept votes from each state’s districts. This would certainly prevent some states from being completely ignored because they are presumed 100% blue or 100% red.

My idea has long been to expand the House to 1,000 seats (so that the average district wouldn’t have more people than 5 states and 1 district won’t soon have 1.1 million people) and the Senate to 3 per state (so every state will have 1 Senator up every 2 years). That would create an EC with 1,155 votes and basically it would be very hard to win the popular vote and lose the EC.

The electoral college is the last vestige of the republican form of government our Constitution was supposed to guarantee every state in the Union. Once it’s gone, so is republicanism. Enter stage left: pure democracy, socialism and dictatorship.

The founding fathers originally had in mind that the electors were to cast their own votes for the candidate of their personal choice. The voters were literally NOT voting for president at all, but electing state reps to elect a president for them. They did not believe the citizens actually knew who to vote for… Electors were their surrogates. Too few people were knowledgeable about the candidates and the issues, so Electors were trusted with their decision. Can you imagine this still in effect today?

That was scrapped and we got what we have now. It too is anachronistic and needs to go.

My position on the EC is this: Either leave it as is, or modify it to make electing the POTUS more (small r) republican, and give ecah state 10 EVs, DC keeps its 3 EVs, and the remaining 35 EVs are awarded to the winner of the national popular vote. (Yes, I am aware that this would never pass.)

My main issue with the Electoral College is the “winner take all” distribution of Electoral College votes. There are many conservative districts in California. However, because these districts are rural, they’re outnumbered by the liberals occupying the more densely populated areas. If Electoral College votes were distributed by the popular vote in each congressional district (with the remaining two votes going to the statewide popular vote winner), I think that would be more fair. Of course, this would result in even more gerrymandering.

There needs t be an algorithm for congressional district that has only two main inputs, both of which can be checked against a formula or raw numbers. Equal or close to equal population(within each state) at the time of the lines being drawn, and geographical compactness. The district needs to be as dang close to SQUARE as humanly possible.

If yo DID want to expand the size of the house … Just make it be each district be the size of the population of the smallest state, then divide accordingly so all congressional districts are roughly the same size.

It’s funny and sad how the left always wants to go backwards while claiming to be progressive.
Perhaps if they understood the wisdom behind the constitution they’d stop trying to screw in their lightbulbs counterclockwise.

There needs t be an algorithm for congressional district that has only two main inputs, both of which can be checked against a formula or raw numbers. Equal or close to equal population(within each state) at the time of the lines being drawn, and geographical compactness. The district needs to be as dang close to SQUARE as humanly possible.

Arssanguinus on October 28, 2012 at 7:26 AM

Yes, it could be something as simple as a district’s length could not be more than 4 times its minimum width, except where bounded by state lines for areas like Michigan upper Peninsula, Florida Panhandle, Long Island, etc. But I am sure politicians would find a way to circumvent that as well

Many informed, conservative commenters have eloquently pointed out why going to a popular vote would be an absolute disaster —

1. States would lose their sovereignty. The small states would have no say at all.

2. Campaigns would only focus on campaigning in big cities which would result in the Fed gov’t catering to big cities and forcing the rural areas to pay for it.

LevinFan on October 27, 2012 at 5:47 PM

I was under the impression that the only role of the electoral college was in presidential elections.

The argument above appears to credit the office of President with control of the sovereignity of the states. I would disagree. Given that Delaware and Rhode Island have the same number of Senators as California and New York, I don’t see eliminating the electoral college as destroying the say of small states in the federal government. 3 electoral college votes for President are more important than 2 Senators?

Regarding the second point, let’s completely discount the growing role of electronic media in campaigning. As it is, the only campaigns that cater to the electoral college are those for President and Vice President which only occur every 4 years. It is difficult to see how a campaign which occurs every 4 years would result in an actual shift in spending. Seriously, even if the presidential campaigns promise more to cities, the President can only run for re-election once. Would s/he deliver? Has Obama delivered on any of his promises?

It seems less fair that conservatives in hopelessly liberal states such as California should not have their voices or opinions count at all.

Maybe the popular vote is not the way to go, but given the Democrats are bussing 10,000’s of Somalis for early voting in Ohio, probably related to its swing state status, the electoral college needs to be fixed.

‘
I think one thing wrong with the Electoral College, is the “Winner Take All” states that give 100% of their electoral votes to a candidate that gets 51%+ of the electoral votes. This does not represent the people. Change that and it’s fine.

Of course the EC should be kept. It is the only firewall against the US becoming a total populist democracy when we are supposed to be a representative republic. If you want to change anything I would suggest giving the less populous states a few more votes in the EC. This would tend to reduce the clout of the large population centers and even the playing field nationally.

Haven’t all these progressives done enough damage to the Constitution? It is certainly apparent that our Founders had a hell of a lot more common sense then what we are demonstrating today. If you can remember one thing in life it is the Constitution is not a living document and not to be altered by the whim of the fools running this country to satisfy their aims.

We are losing grasp of the fact that the Federal government exists only through a contractual arrangement among the states. If this was kept in the forefront of politics, the creeping intrusion of the Federal into our lives would be resisted.

The electoral college, along with the now discarded practice of the state governments appointing US Senators, was a way for the states to keep the Federal government on a leash.

We would greatly harm ourselves if we gave up the electoral college. We would gave those who love a central government runnint everything the tool they needed to complete the destruction of our freedoms.

And I would also advocate for going back to the state appointment of senators.

Secondly, only people who own property, pay taxes or served in the military or government position which exposed individuals to equal risk as if in the military should be voting.
The military and government risk category would have lifetime voting rights since they used their life as our collateral.
Yes I am very comfortable with everyone else not getting to vote, they have no skin in the game and are living off the labors of everyone else above, they should be thanking those who are keeping their free society alive.You retire without owning property, having not served in the military/government risk category and go on the government dole, then yes you don’t get to vote anymore.
Skwor on October 27, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Ok. Then I get this to my reply:

Just because some can’t perform a duty that doesn’t make that duty unacceptable or wrong for recognizing as something special.

Skwor on October 27, 2012 at 11:02 AM

You realize how draconian & tyrannical that sounds?
What about people who rent property their whole lives & are responsible members of society?
I know ranchers who cannot afford to buy their own property & lease from rich out of state owners who have not served in the military, nor do they even make enough $ to pay state or FICA taxes.
I never said anything to make you reply this: Just because some can’t perform a duty that doesn’t make that duty unacceptable or wrong for recognizing as something special.
Your idea walks a thin line along tyranny, IMO.

“Faithless electors” are a creation of the political parties. ALL electors should be more interested in selecting the best president and vice president for the next four years than in following the dictates of the political parties.

you really desire the destruction of our Union, don’t you? What else could be your reason for supporting a policy that would create a greater balkanization between those conservative states and the liberal states. You would literally have the images that were passed around the internet when Bush was reelected come to fruition. The United States of Canada and Jesusland as liberals derogatorily called the conservative south. But I guess that’s your goal. Take the USA down a peg and destroy the Union once and for all.